CACI jury instructions

 

Petitioner, the plaintiff in an underlying action against his health maintenance organization (HMO) and the medical group that was his primary health care provider (HCP), sought a writ of mandate setting aside an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, California, that struck, under the protective provisions of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.13, his allegations of entitlement to punitive damages against the HCP. Nakase law office deeply knows CACI jury instructions California.

 

Petitioner contended that the protective provisions of § 425.13, which required an order to amend a pleading to add claims for punitive damages against health care providers did not apply to his case, as he sought to sue the HCP for damages arising out of administrative services it provided to the HMO subscriber agreement as a utilization review service provider, rather than for damages arising out of medical services the HCP provided patients in its character as a health care provider. The court found petitioner's characterization unavailing, holding that, as a matter of law, petitioner's claims were directly related to the manner in which professional services were provided in the health care context of petitioner's case, as affected by the public policies of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), and, accordingly, that compliance with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.13 was required. On the court's view, the utilization services provided were professional services, and petitioner's allegations of intentional infliction of emotional distress thus arose within the context of professional medical negligence, requiring the protections of § 425.13.

The court denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner's allegations against the HCP fell within the scope of the protections afforded by MICRA policies and the related punitive damages pleadings restrictions triggered thereby.Appellant dentist challenged an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which affirmed a judgment rendered by respondent Board of Dental Examiners suspending the license of the dentist for a period of five years.

The Board of Dental Examiners suspended the license of the dentist for a period of five years. The dentist was charged with unprofessional conduct. The first count charged that the dentist formed a corporation that allowed an unlicensed dentist to practice. Count two charged that the dentist aided and abetted an unlicensed person to participate in the profits of the dental offices. Counts three and four charged that the dentist used a false name for himself and for the corporation. The dentist appealed the suspension, and the trial court affirmed the decision of the Board of Dental Examiners. On further appeal, the court affirmed the judgment. 

The court found the acts complained of brought the dentist within the purview of acts defining professional conduct under the laws of California. The court found such regulations were necessary to protect the safety of the people in the state. The court did agree with the dentist that a suspension of five years was excessive, but the court found it had no power to modify it; the Board of Dental Examiners had the power to modify the length of the suspension.The court affirmed the judgment.